Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7596441" data-attributes="member: 16814">Apparently, Max's term for an argument he doesn't understand is &quot;Red Herring.&quot;Max, my BitD example showcases that there are things you've defined as more &quot;realistic&quot; that can occur with no mechanical system added to do so.&nbsp; The point is that these&nbsp; &quot;realistic&quot; things come to be in the game fiction, not that there's more or less realism than in other systems.&nbsp; I mean, my argument all along is that &quot;realism&quot; is really just a cover for arbitrary preference, so why would I ever argue some system has more arbitrary preference than others?&nbsp; That would be entirely up to specific participants if it did or not.Nope, instead my point was to showcase a game that adds these &quot;realistic&quot; outcomes solely based on a &quot;GM decides&quot; model.&nbsp; You fail a desperate Wreck attempt on a trio of higher tier cutthroats and I'm well wirhin my GM rights to assign a level 3 Harm described as a 'sucking chest wound.'&nbsp; Future efforts will require that this fiction be acknowledged (you'll have to burn Stress just to act, for instance, and anything you do that would ve affected by a sucking chest wound would have additional complications).&nbsp; I could also assign this as a result of a failed check to make a long leap between buildings over a spiked fence, with the added bit of maybe you're also impaled on the fence.&nbsp; The mechanics involved are the same.&nbsp; Just as they would be for armor damage or weapon damage.Your focus has been on adding new mechanical systems or modifying existing ones to achieve &quot;realism&quot;.&nbsp; That's not the only way, which goes toward &quot;realism&quot; being more of a subjective preference rather than an objective state.&nbsp; And, to rehome in on the OP, GM decides is no more realistic a method than using a mechanical subsystem.&nbsp; I've just flipped it from the OP so that now you're arguing using a nechanic and I'm arguing using GM decides.&nbsp; Funny, that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7596441, member: 16814"] Apparently, Max's term for an argument he doesn't understand is "Red Herring." Max, my BitD example showcases that there are things you've defined as more "realistic" that can occur with no mechanical system added to do so. The point is that these "realistic" things come to be in the game fiction, not that there's more or less realism than in other systems. I mean, my argument all along is that "realism" is really just a cover for arbitrary preference, so why would I ever argue some system has more arbitrary preference than others? That would be entirely up to specific participants if it did or not. Nope, instead my point was to showcase a game that adds these "realistic" outcomes solely based on a "GM decides" model. You fail a desperate Wreck attempt on a trio of higher tier cutthroats and I'm well wirhin my GM rights to assign a level 3 Harm described as a 'sucking chest wound.' Future efforts will require that this fiction be acknowledged (you'll have to burn Stress just to act, for instance, and anything you do that would ve affected by a sucking chest wound would have additional complications). I could also assign this as a result of a failed check to make a long leap between buildings over a spiked fence, with the added bit of maybe you're also impaled on the fence. The mechanics involved are the same. Just as they would be for armor damage or weapon damage. Your focus has been on adding new mechanical systems or modifying existing ones to achieve "realism". That's not the only way, which goes toward "realism" being more of a subjective preference rather than an objective state. And, to rehome in on the OP, GM decides is no more realistic a method than using a mechanical subsystem. I've just flipped it from the OP so that now you're arguing using a nechanic and I'm arguing using GM decides. Funny, that. [/QUOTE]

Verification